Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Presentation . 2020
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Other literature type . 2020
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Presentation . 2020
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo...
Article . 2020
License: CC BY
Data sources: Sygma
versions View all 4 versions
addClaim

Generating population weights for the Well-being of older people measure (WOOP)

Authors: Himmler, Sebastian; van Exel, Job; Brouwer, Werner;

Generating population weights for the Well-being of older people measure (WOOP)

Abstract

Background & Objective There is a growing need for accurately measuring well-being of older people to inform public policy. To account for the large heterogeneity in quality of life, multi-attribute instruments are required. To be suitable for economic evaluations, the instrument's levels have to be weighted. These weights are commonly based on population preferences. This study aims to assess the suitability of two alternative approaches in estimating such population weights for a newly developed nine-dimensional well-being measure, the WOOP (well-being of older people) in an elderly population. Furthermore, we will present first results for the population weights. Methods In order to assess the cognitive burden of best-worst scaling (BWS) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) for obtaining weights for the WOOP, we created an online survey, which was tested in six think-aloud interviews and administered to a sample of 469 individuals aged 65 and above. Respondents were randomised to one of three randomised study arms with 13 choice tasks each. One arm included a DCE, where levels were colour-coded and overlapped. The second arm consisted of a case 2 BWS exercise. To test, whether colour coding would also be useful for BWS, we included a third arm, which presented respondents with a colour-coded BWS exercise. Cognitive burden and quality of the different tasks are assessed in terms of stability, monotonicity and continuity, as well as self-reported cognitive burden and answering time. The preferred method will then be used to create population weights using a sample of 1,000 Dutch citizens aged 65 and above. Results Think-aloud interviews and survey responses indicate that both BWS and DCE for valuing a nine-dimensional instrument are feasible for most respondents. Drop-out rate and completion time were lower in the DCE, while there was mixed evidence on the self-reported cognitive burden of the tasks itself. However, a larger share of respondents expressed that they could have answered more tasks in the DCE arm. In terms of stability, monotonicity and continuity, the answers to DCE tasks outperform the BWS answers. Preliminary results on the importance of the dimensions indicate that besides dimensions like mental and physical health, being able to cope with the current situation and feeling useful is also relevant to respondents. Discussion Results of the conducted analysis hint towards DCE being the more suitable methodological choice for estimating the population weights of a nine-dimensional quality of life instrument in the elderly. This not only informs the decision on how to proceed with the valuation of the WOOP but the more general discussion on the appropriateness of BWS and DCE exercises in health preference research.

Keywords

health state valuation, well-being, choice experiment

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    OpenAIRE UsageCounts
    Usage byUsageCounts
    visibility views 4
    download downloads 5
  • 4
    views
    5
    downloads
    Powered byOpenAIRE UsageCounts
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
visibility
download
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
views
OpenAIRE UsageCountsViews provided by UsageCounts
downloads
OpenAIRE UsageCountsDownloads provided by UsageCounts
0
Average
Average
Average
4
5
Green
Funded by
Related to Research communities